Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am disappointed by the Minister's response. Clearly, the gender equality mandate is not properly addressed if we have a situation where, in the High Court, for instance, 70% of judges are male and 30% are female, but the split is 55:45 in the District Court. The ratio might even go to 45:55. The logic of seeking to recognise the equality of men and women, as lawyers, jurisprudents, holders of constitutional office and members of our society, should apply at every level of the courts. It should not be the case that the overall balance between men and women right across the courts systems is more or less adhered such that we have a situation in the High Court, say, where the ratio of males to females is 70:30. If there is a logic to the gender fairness mandate, it should apply on a layered basis throughout the Judiciary rather than just on a vertical basis.

The Minister is saying that the same logic must then apply to diversity, but I do not agree with that at all. We have racial minorities, religious minorities, Traveller minorities and gender orientation minorities. It is not reasonable to say, for example, that there should be a Traveller in the Supreme Court as a matter of intent, because that is not practicable. We do not need to have people of different races in the Supreme Court on a tokenistic basis. Appointments must, in the end, be made on the basis of merit. There is a very clear basis for saying that the gender equity principle is different from the diversity principle because, in section 7(2), the diversity principle is referred to as applying only in as far as it is "practicable" and "feasible", whereas the applicability of the gender equity principle is unqualified, with no reference to practicality or reasonableness. In other words, the draftsman has conceded that the two principles are different by way of the different language used to reference each. That is good grounds for distinguishing between gender equity and diversity equity. Second, my point about layered gender equity in addition to vertical gender equity is a valid one. Therefore, I propose to press the amendment.